Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2017, 05:28 AM
 
33,865 posts, read 16,913,600 times
Reputation: 17135

Advertisements

[quote=Seacove;48551477

If a Democrat nominates a woman, Republicans will call her a token regardless. And Republicans will not elect a woman. Elect being the operative word. Republicans are very patriarchal, they will not elect a woman.[/QUOTE]

We'd elect the right women. We dodged a bullet not electing HRC, who is unethical and unqualified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2017, 05:36 AM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,671,227 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
We'd elect the right women. We dodged a bullet not electing HRC, who is unethical and unqualified.
A woman only has to be more ethical than Trump. And that's a huge population. And Trump had no government experience, inherited his money, would have more if he's just invested it, and declared bankruptcy multiple times, so qualified is definitely debatable. But ethical? Most women are going to be more ethical. Republicans still won't elect a woman. Doubt they would even nominate a woman but they definitely won't elect a woman. I'm not a betting person but I would bet on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 05:37 AM
 
33,865 posts, read 16,913,600 times
Reputation: 17135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
A woman only has to be more ethical than Trump. .
HRC was less ethical than Trump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 05:40 AM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,671,227 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
HRC was less ethical than Trump.
Definitely definitely disagree. And more stable. And understood our allies more. But all any future female candidate has to do is be more ethical than Trump and that is a very low bar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 05:44 AM
 
33,865 posts, read 16,913,600 times
Reputation: 17135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
Definitely definitely disagree. .
Back at you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 06:22 AM
 
8,852 posts, read 4,518,436 times
Reputation: 16163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
Definitely definitely disagree. And more stable. And understood our allies more. But all any future female candidate has to do is be more ethical than Trump and that is a very low bar.
Yes the bar is very low, but Hillary was still way below it. I can think of several women that would get my vote - Tusli Gabbard (she's my Rep now) or Condi Rice (but she's too smart to run). I'm sure there are others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 07:05 AM
 
33,077 posts, read 12,337,238 times
Reputation: 14757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
A woman only has to be more ethical than Trump. And that's a huge population. And Trump had no government experience, inherited his money, would have more if he's just invested it, and declared bankruptcy multiple times, so qualified is definitely debatable. But ethical? Most women are going to be more ethical. Republicans still won't elect a woman. Doubt they would even nominate a woman but they definitely won't elect a woman. I'm not a betting person but I would bet on that.
Be accurate. More than one Trump controlled company has used the bankruptcy process. Trump has never declared personal bankruptcy. It's not the same thing, and you know it isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 07:05 AM
 
5,257 posts, read 6,183,331 times
Reputation: 3125
I think the biggest problem is that we have not really seen the better qualified women running. I like Elizabeth Dole but when she ran it was on the basis of 2 lower end cabinet positions. When Hillary first ran it was on the basis of one full term in the Senate and putting up with Bill. Fiorina and Mosely-Bruan were never credible candidates to me since they were best known for screwing up their previous high profile gigs. And Bachman was a complete disaster of a candidate.


Nancy Pelosi being Speaker of the House is equivalent to the manner in which some countries pick their leader from a legislative body. It would be interesting to see if women have more success within a group of people who have worked with them or in a general election.


And if we are going to be honest- if it weren't for Hillary, I think we would have seen at least one more credible woman throwing her hat in the ring in the last 4 elections. She pretty much sucked all the air out of the room in terms of attention and fundraising for Democrats. Feinstein or Boxer would have probably attempted vanity runs (Feinstein) or move the party issue runs akin to Sanders (Boxer or Warren) were it not for Hillary's continued presence. Many other woman with the potential to run were being wiped out in 02, 04, 10 and 14 R waves.


If she didn't have to care for an adult sibling I think Susanna Martinez (NM Gov) could make an interesting primary run against Trump in 2016. And I think Klobucher could make a credible run on the D side. As one of my friends said in 08 when people where so rapped up in first- possibly the first woman, first black, or first Vietnam Vet- Hillary is not that much of a woman. Meaning she was such a known entity and her most defining characteristics were not the stereotypical criticisms of women. Plus she had huge problems with likeability and trust that continue to this day and do not bog down other women politicians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,447,648 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
A woman only has to be more ethical than Trump. And that's a huge population. And Trump had no government experience, inherited his money, would have more if he's just invested it, and declared bankruptcy multiple times, so qualified is definitely debatable. But ethical? Most women are going to be more ethical. Republicans still won't elect a woman. Doubt they would even nominate a woman but they definitely won't elect a woman. I'm not a betting person but I would bet on that.
It is interesting you would say something like: Trump has no experience: well by the end of 4 years he will have plenty. You talk about bankruptcy many times: this is not unusual for large corporations and he did not declare it personally, the company did. And what in the world would make you think women are more ethical than men? Republicans certainly would elect a woman. They would just want her to be the best candidate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2017, 03:01 PM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,671,227 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
It is interesting you would say something like: Trump has no experience: well by the end of 4 years he will have plenty. You talk about bankruptcy many times: this is not unusual for large corporations and he did not declare it personally, the company did. And what in the world would make you think women are more ethical than men? Republicans certainly would elect a woman. They would just want her to be the best candidate.
That would be true of any person elected. If the bar is that person will have experience by being elected, then experience is not a criteria for any man or woman, therefore, the only criteria is they need to be more ethical than Trump?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:37 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top